World Affairs Institute

IS THERE A WAY OUT?Source: The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920), Vol. 82, No. 2 (FEBRUARY, 1920), pp. 40-42Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20668466 .

Accessed: 21/05/2014 08:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.228 on Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40 ADVOCATE OF PEACE February

bring it to perfection. And the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably* fall into in their first trials and experiments."

And Mr. James Harvey Eobinson, writing in 1890,

expressed the thought thus :

"In its chief features, then, we find our Constitution to be a skillful synthesis of elements carefully selected from those entering into the composition of the then

existing State governments. The Convention 'was led

astray by no theories of what might be good, but clave

closely to what experience had demonstrated to he

good/ "

It may be added that the quotation included by Mr.

Eobinson was from Mr. James Eussell Lowell's address

before the New York Eeform Club, April 13, 1888.

One familiar with our written Constitution must

agree that Mr. Gladstone was indulging in a sort of

complimentary persiflage, when he courteously remarked

that "the American Constitution is the most wonderful

work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and '

purpose of man," for, as we are now quite well aware, it was not "struck off at a given time." It represents, rather, the collective experiences of the preceding State

constitutions, of the colonial charters which preceded them, of the charters of the still earlier trading com

panies themselves ; indeed of a period of American

political training much longer in point of time than

that which has followed 1787. What is also important in any consideration of the rise

of constitutions is that constitutions cannot be imposed from above ; they must evolve from within and from be

low. They were purely local causes, for example, which

gave rise to the principle of representation in the Colony of Massachusetts. In 1631 it was ordered "that all swine found in any man's corn shall be forfeited to the public, and that the party damnified shall be satisfied." Two

years later it was ordered "that it shall be lawful for

any man to kill any swine that comes into his corn." These were simple, homely situations. But because of them twenty-four persons from the various towns in

Massachusetts appeared, in 1634, before the General

Court, and in their representative capacity demanded

recognition. This led, significantly as we now see, to an arrangement whereby representatives were chosen by the freemen of the towns, with "the full power and voices of the said freemen." That was not only the be

ginning of representative government in Massachusetts ; it represents a vital aspect of the development of our constitutional law. This is so because it was such sim

ple needs, practical problems and methods of solution, that gave bent to those slow but significant steps on the

part of the colonists up the long road to 1787. The

background of our Federal Government spreads over a

century prior to 1776. More than twenty "plans" of

Union had been submitted during that time. Our Fed eral Constitution is thus more than an imitation, more than a product of ingenuity, more than the result of wars and of a revolution; in the language of Sidney George Fisher, it was the outgrowth of "natural con

ditions, many minds, many ages, and great searchings of heart."

It was neither custom nor historical precedent, but

practical needs, expressing themselves in statutory law, that ultimately gave a written constitution to each of the colonies, and thence to the thirteen States. And out of similar needs and in a similar manner, growing in deed directly out of the State constitutions, and not the fiat of any man or body of men, was evolved, not "struck

off," that noble instrument of 1787, upon which rests that great body of written laws which has given rise to constructive political liberty in America.

Since, thus, to be successful a constitution must rep resent the outgrowth of time and need and law, the in evitable fate of fiat constitutions has been defeat. The Covenant of the League of Nations, with its failure to

distinguish between legislative, judicial, and executive functions; with its utter lack of reference to existing international situations and organs; with its creation out of pure theory, without any adequate reference to the local needs of peoples, is, we fear, such a fiat con stitution. Its radical modification, if not its utter rejec tion by the United States, therefore, has from the be

ginning, from our point of view, been inevitable.

IS THERE A WAY OUT?

The

international situation facing the United States Senate will be settled by the Senate, for it is the

duty of the Senate to do just that. But it will not be settled by the Senate until it is settled right. It will not be settled right if the decisions be made out of a desire

simply to teach a lesson to the President of the United States. Neither can the matter be settled by false ac cusations against the Senate. The simple fact is that the Senate is faced with a concrete situation and a con stitutional duty. The concrete situation is the Treaty of Peace; its constitutional duty is to give its "advice" and to give or withhold its "consent" to the ratification of that treaty. There can be no doubt that the Senate is as interested in performing its duty in the premises as are the rest of us.

Even the most radical opponents of the League of Nations would grant that the United States might well restrain its liberty of action for the benefit not of this so-called "League," but of the Society of Nations which

already exists, and that in conformity with the demands of intelligent international public opinion. Mr. Knox,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.228 on Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1920 ADVOCATE OF PEACE 41

when Secretary of State, delivered an address in De

cember, 1909, in which he expressed precisely that view. The members of the Senate believe in international co*

operation, and the good-will, intelligence, and conscience of the American people compel them also to believe in it. But the United States Senate, and we must grant that the members of the Senate are better acquainted with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace than any other one body in America, do not believe in the method of international co-operation provided for in Mr. Wil son's Covenant of the League of Nations. That has been demonstrated by the votes already taken upon this matter in the Senate. We are of the opinion that the

Senate is also opposed to the Treaty of Peace, irre

spective of the Covenant, but of that we have only hearsay evidence. The Senate has once refused its

"consent" to the ratification of the treaty. If the

President had been notified of this fact in the usual

official manner provided by custom in such cases, the

whole matter would now be in the hands of the Presi

dent. Our view is that the Senate would have done

well had it gone about the matter in that way. But now the whole thing is again before the Senate for open

discussion, and that without cl?ture. What will the

outcome be? We believe that in the present stage of international

development that the United States should be its own

judge as to whether or not it shall have performed its

obligations under the terms of the Covenant, and, as

suming that we have become a member, that it should

itself decide whether or not it might withdraw from

the League. We believe that the United States Con

gress, representing the people of the United States, should decide whether or not this country should send

its boys to fight across seas. We believe that the United

States Congress, representing the people of the United

States, should decide whether or not this nation should

take over the control of Turkey, Armenia, or other peo

ples whatsoever. We believe that the United States

Congress, representing the people of the United States, should decide whether or not a given question before

the Council or the Assembly of the League is or is not

of a domestic character. We believe that the United

States Congress, representing the people of the United

States, should decide whether or not this Government

should submit the Monroe Doctrine, in a given case, to

the League of Nations for judgment. We believe that

the United States Congress, representing the people of

the United States, should provide by law for the ap

pointment of any representative or representatives of

the United States in the Council or Assembly of the

League of Nations. We believe that the United States

Congress, representing the people of the United States, should decide how far the Separation Commissions shall regulate or interfere with the trade between this

country and Germany, or other nation. We believe that the United States Congress, representing the peo

ple of the United States, should, in the light of the

present international situation, decide whether or not

the United States shall increase or decrease its arma

ments. We believe that the United States Congress,

representing the people of the United States, should de

cide whether or not other States, even though charged with breaking the Covenant, shall continue their commer

cial relations with citizens of this country. We believe

that the United States Congress, representing the people of the United States, should determine under Sections

3 and 4, Part X, of the treaty, whether any acts in

contravention of the rights of American citizens are legal or illegal. We believe that the United States Congress, representing the people of the United States, should

make due provisions for representation in any labor or

ganization to be set up under the League. We believe

that the United States should not give its assent to the

provisions of the treaty relating to Shantung. We be

lieve in the principle of equal representation in the Coun

cil or Assembly. We believe these things. We believe

that the American people believe these things. We be

lieve the United States Senate owes it to the people of

the United States, and to the future success of the

League of Nations, if there is to be such, certainly of

the Society of Nations already an entity, that these

matters be made perfectly plain, that they should be

stated in the form of clear-cut reservations, definitely,

unequivocally. We believe that if the treaty can be

ratified with these reservations that it might well be

so ratified, both by the Senate and the President, and

proclaimed accordingly. Mr. Bryan, a Vice-President of this Society, has in

dicated a way out of the present situation. Addressing himself to the principle, "Let the Majority Eule," he

has said:

"We, the undersigned members of the United States Sen

ate, believing in the right of the majority to rule and being

unwilling to make it more difficult to conclude peace than

to declare war, hereby agree to use our votes (by casting

them or withholding them) as to enable a majority of the

elected members (49 of the 96) to record a two-thirds vote

in favor of the ratification of the treaty with Germany

with such reservations as such majority, voting for ratifica

tion, agree upon, provided that each of the undersigned shall

be free to vote his convictions on each reservation and at

liberty to urge any desired change in the League of Nations

after our nation is a member thereof. Such a course as is

above outlined would hasten ratification and locate the re

sponsibility for delay."

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.228 on Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

42 ADVOCATE OF PEACE February

The Treaty of Peace proposed out of Paris, because

of its attempt to close the war and to establish the

peace of the world by means of one and the same instru

ment, has befogged both issues and produced distraction

everywhere. Many believe that both the treaty and the

Covenant as drawn and approved in Paris, are impos sible of fulfillment. We are inclined to accept that

view. Yet it ought to be possible for the Senate to

extricate itself and the nation from the present in

tolerable situation without endangering any funda

mental feature of American political principles. We

can see but two ways to accomplish this: either by re

jecting the treaty outright; or by ratifying it with reservations substantially as we have tried to indicate.

THE PASSING OF UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

Notwithstanding

? the President of the United

States, the Secretary of War, the General Staff

of the Army, and a majority of the members of the

military committees of both houses of Congress, all of

whom have committed themselves to approval of im

mediate or ultimate action establishing universal com

pulsory military training of the youth of the country, we do not believe that it will come to pass. It is quite

true, as the President pointed out in his ineffective

letter to the Democratic party's caucus, that "the pres ent disturbed state of the world does not permit such

sureness with regard to America's obligations as to

allow us lightly to decide upon this great question upon

purely military grounds." Quite so. But the decision, not arrived at lightly, is being made on grounds other

than military.

Eeports of trained newspaper investigators, sent into

the heart of the country, whether they represent jour nals favoring or disapproving a large army and uni

versal military training, agree in the verdict that the

"plain people" of the country, whether in New Eng

land, the Mid-West, or in the South, do not believe in

war a bit more than they did prior to 1914; that they are disillusioned as to the methods of war and post war diplomacy; that the men who went across in the

A. E. P. can not be relied upon to vote for a militarist

policy, and that the House of Eepresentatives, as at

present constituted or as it may be altered by the next

elections, will not be induced to vote for universal

military training. Nor, so these reporters say, need

any would-be President of the United States think that

he will get the nomination because of his popularity with the returned soldiers or their kinsfolk on the basis

of his military record.

These reports from the field are supported by the

actions of Congress during the past month. Bills have

been introduced calling for universal compulsory mili

tary training, with estimates as to the annual cost rang

ing from $700,000,000 to $1,000,000,000. They never

will be passed by this Congress, partly because of ethical

dissent and partly because of fiscal prudence. The tax

payer will not "stand" for any such raid on the Treasury now, and neither party dares to act as if he would.

Hence the vote of the Democratic caucus postponing

anything looking like approval of the plan, and this in

spite of the President's plea for a non-committal course.

ARE THE DYNASTIES DEAD?

WE

in America are consumed with our own eco

nomic, industrial, financial, and class-conscious

problems, so much so that we have not yet realized the

"wrecks of matter and the crush of worlds" which seem

to have taken place. Komanoff, Hohenzollern, and

Hapsburg dynasties deemed but yesterday to be im

pregnable and within their spheres well nigh all-power

ful, are for the time unhorsed, side-tracked, impotent. Are they dead?

As for the Eomanoffs, they seem to be dead. The

evidence is a bit obscure, but photographs are shown to

us now indicating with some circumstancial detail that

the Czar and his family are no more. In any event, we

can not obtain the slightest evidence that there is a

ghost of a chance of the return of any portion of this

family to the seat of authority in Eussia. There are

many parties contending with each other in that mighty

land, but none seems to be interested in the reincarna

tion of the Eomanoffs.

There seems to be some life left in the Hohenzollerns.

The Kaiser's name confronts us in the headlines almost

daily ; likewise that of the Crown Prince ; but more, the

friends of the Hohenzollerns in Germany are plotting.

Among the opponents of the present republic, with its

plebeian president, its socialist-clerical cabinet, there are

not a few monarchists. Just how much life is left in

the Hohenzollern organism is, however, difficult to as

certain. Our belief is that unless we insist upon breath

ing the breath of life into this far-from-beloved de

parted by some fatuous attempt at revenge, by some

false move that may bedeck the former Kaiser with a

martyr's crown, that this particular dynasty is dead

beyond recall. We are not sure about the Hapsburgs. If there be

few of them in Austria, there are evidences that Haps

burg plotters are quite able to sit up and take notice

in Hungary. So important are these gentlemen in that

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.228 on Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions